F150 Ecoboost - I Stand Corrected - Premium Not Required

[villain2000]

Checked the sales sales brochure, spoke with Ford Factory reps and got ahold of an owner and an owners manual. PREMIUM NOT REQUIRED. This powerplant is back on my short list.

[musclecarman]

I've had my eye on the F150 3.5 eco boost. Does anybody have one, and have they towed with it yet?

[RustyFairmount]

I'm driving the EcoBoost. Only towed once from the dealership. Besides the sound of the turbos whining, the truck was fantastic. Barely felt the camper behind me. I was hauling an x23b, that was loaded with a full tank of water. No fuel economy metrics to share. The trip was too short.

[mcfarmall]

Got one and the towing is incredible. Towed a 23B from Kalamazoo to Tawas City, MI and averaged 10.3 mpg...pretty much what I expected but the truck handled the trailer with authority. Was able to go up the long overpass approaches @ 60 mph and never downshift. Pulling onto the highway from a rest area I used the M function and rocketed to 60 in 3rd gear, merging into traffic quickly and safely.

No regrets with the Ecoboost whatsoever. City mileage back and forth to work is 16.5 routinely.

[Jim_in_WA]

Good to hear the reviews. We own a 08 King Ranch, profile pic, but just bought a 2011 Lariat, Screw with the 3.5. I have not had a chance to tow yet but my first impression is Ford has struck a gold mine on this one. I can't wait to hook up to the rig.

[Jim_in_WA]

This is my new tow vehicle.

2011 F150 Lariat, Screw, 6.5" bed and 3.5l Ecoboost.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Per Ford's recommendations, premium is needed only when hauling heavy loads. On some of the F-150 forums, there have been some reports of overheating problems when hauling near max loads up hills in hot weather unless premium is used.

[Jim_in_WA]

Straight from the owners manual:

3.5L V6 EcoBoost™ engine
Your vehicle is designed to run on regular fuel with an octane rating of
87 or higher. For best overall performance, premium fuel with an octane
rating of 91 or higher is recommended. The performance gained by using
premium fuel will be most noticeable in hot weather or in severe duty
applications such as towing a trailer.

[AMC_Jeep]

The Ecoboost looks quite impressive. It's on my short list for my next truck purchase.

[Seann45]

I would wait a few years to see how the durability of this motor is....

[clutch]

Originally Posted by Seann45

I would wait a few years to see how the durability of this motor is....

I agree. There is no replacement for displacement. The cubic inch kind.

[Seann45]

Originally Posted by clutch

I agree. There is no replacement for displacement. The cubic inch kind.

366 ci of raw turbo charged diesel power is best...

[clutch]

366cu in is good but 368 is mo betta.

[Murphie]

The 3.5L V6 was one truck I wanted to seriously look at purchasing, or a used Duramax. They were priced about the same and my mechanic told me to off on the Ecoboost on account of it being in it's first year. He also told me he saw a promo they show mechanics and they had the motor running full out continuously to the point the tailpipe was glowing. The motor is rock solid and probably still running. In the end I could not afford either truck and was more than pleased to end up with the vortecmax.

[JPBeck]

I have a 09 with a 5.4L, I test drove a 2011 ecoboost and didn't feel much difference except my truck sounds way better. As far as I've seen and read the mileage is about the same as what I get now:
17 city, 21 highway, and towing I get about 14.

In the end I didn't feel the advertised numbers justified me trading my truck in.
Besides all that I had a turbo go out on my F250 once-- it set me back quite a lot-- imagine replacing two!

Just my humble opinion and my personal thoughts and experiences. Get what you like/ can afford.

[TexasA&M]

Originally Posted by Seann45

366 ci of raw turbo charged diesel power is best...

Originally Posted by clutch

366cu in is good but 368 is mo betta.

I didn't know that you guys liked the 6.0 Powerstroke so much! I must say that I agree! :lizard:

Mfg - L - cu in
Dodge - 5.9 - 360
Ford - 6.0 - 366
Ford - 6.4 - 390
GM - 6.6 - 402
Dodge/Ford - 6.7 - 408
Ford - 7.3 - 445

This is using 61.023 cu in/L. Sorry for the chart being squished... the spacing doesn't translate when I hit the 'submit reply' button.

[clutch]

Originally Posted by TexasA&M

I didn't know that you guys liked the 6.0 Powerstroke so much! I must say that I agree! :lizard:

Mfg - L - cu in
Dodge - 5.9 - 360
Ford - 6.0 - 366
Ford - 6.4 - 390
GM - 6.6 - 402
Dodge/Ford - 6.7 - 408
Ford - 7.3 - 445

This is using 61.023 cu in/L. Sorry for the chart being squished... the spacing doesn't translate when I hit the 'submit reply' button.

LOL, you got me.

[Crabman]

Ford - 7.3 - 445


Why oh why did they ever stop making these? They seemingly lasted forever in crab delivery trucks and got better mileage then some of their much newer replacements.. OK, I just answered my own question! I guess they lasted Tooooo long!


Ford - 7.3 - 445

[Quantum]

My father's 2000 F-350 7.3L had 400,000km when he sold it and bought a 2011 6.7L F-350. Everything was original on that truck, other than a CPS sensor and the waterpump.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

While at one time I would have agreed that there was no replacement for displacement, many, if not most, of today's engines are better built, more powerful, more efficient (not as thirsty), and often last longer than the old monsters. I can remember when engines had to get "overhauled" (new rings, bearings, and seals) every 50,000 miles (yeah, I know, I'm giving my age away). I had a 429 in an old F300 crew cab that weighed less than my present F150 that got only 12 miles to the gallon highway and city and didn't have as much seat of the pants power as the 5.4L (roughly 330 ci) in my F150 which gets 19 mpg highway and 16 city (the 330 of the era was a real slug).

If one is frequently or continuously hauling large loads, then the more truck and engine, the better. But not everyone does. Often the tow vehicle gets used for towing only occasionally and, the rest of time, is a grocery getter, mom taxi, etc. I fall into that category. It would be just too expensive to maintain and feed a big diesel when I'm going to tow a trailer 200 miles or less no more than four times a year.

The newer F-150s are capable of handling pretty large loads, although not as well as the bigger trucks and engines, and are far more economical to own, feed, and maintain. They will not hold up well under continuous use but for occasional heavy use, they will suffice. I was skeptical about the Ecoboost when I first heard about it. I've since learned the engine block is built beefy enough to handle the strain and the engine doesn't have turn over high RPMs to get the power it puts out. When not working the snot out of it, it is more economical to drive than the bigger engines when not under a heavy load, especially since it is pulling around a lighter truck. The engine was torture tested by Ford, both on a dyno and under real life conditions pulling heavy loads under varying conditions.

The only serious complaints I've seen were a couple of instances of overheating (which put the engine into limp mode to protect it) when pulling a near max load up a 6% or more grade when the temperature was well over 100 degrees. In both cases, the problem occurred while running on regular and either went away when switching to premium or the problem couldn't be replicated. In both cases, the drivers had tried to maintain high speed instead of slowing down and gearing down when the temps started to rise.

There have been some complaints about the transmission but that was from a batch of bad pumps. Those failed shortly after the trucks were put into use and when they were replaced, the problem went away.